User talk:Vjam

Northern Quarter

Hrrm, sorry for taking so long on this, but for doing good work on the Northern Quarter and Madchester articles, I award you this Barnstar. -- Cormaggio ^@ 15:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Vjam 15:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Madchester

Ive been following your edits on the Madchester article while doing RC Patrol. Keep up the good work! Cheers, Youngamerican 16:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers --Vjam 15:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed a request for a peer review on Madchester as the initial step of running it through the Featured Article Candidate process. Please assist me with the comments on peer review as they come. ALKIVAR™

14:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've put some comments on there. Hope the peer review gets some attention. --Vjam 20:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Baths

Hey Vjam, it's good to see that you've expanded on the article on the Victoria Baths. But here's something to remember, you redirected Victoria Baths, Manchester to your Victoria Baths article, it would be a lot better had you used the "move" function instead. Anyone can move a page, had you moved it, it would have preserved other users edits to the original article in the history. - Hahnchen 05:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hanchen. Didn't actually find the Victoria Baths, Manchester entry til after, and I did then add some of the contents. Have a nice Xmas. --Vjam 15:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Longsight? Levenshulme?

Hi again, here, I just noticed you edited the AllFM article, and I was wondering if you live in that area. I'm in Levenshulme if you ever wanted to meet up... Cormaggio ^@ 13:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm spoken for actually, but I've clocked your photo so if I ever see you in the street I'll be sure to say hi. --Vjam 00:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Spoken for"? Errm, ok, that wasn't a chat up line, if that's what you mean - I was just interested! But, yes, do say hi if you see me. Cormaggio ^@ 17:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I need more practice at being tongue-in-cheek on the internet. --Vjam 18:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - equally, you always feel so stupid when you don't pick up on things like that, but it's sometimes so difficult to tell. Cormaggio ^@ 18:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for edit summary

Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 21% for major edits and 8% for minor edits. (Based on the last 150 major and 149 minor edits in the article namespace.)

This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 14:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

You presence is requested at the Arbitration Re: Removal of humus sapiens admin privilages due to administrative abuse. Please click Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration Israel Article--Oiboy77 17:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oiboy. I've looked at the arbitration page, but deliberately not at the history behind it, and I am not sure how much I can help when I've not been part of the whole thing.

Humus Sapiens is clearly a Zionist and this may colour his edits on some topics - I can sympathise that this might be frustrating. Wikipedia might be an easier place if everyone subsribed to the same worldview, but being a Zionist is not an offence in itself, and we are supposed to assume good faith and all that. In my discussion with him on Talk:Palestine I think he is wrong (also not an offence), but not that he has behaved unreasonably.

I'll direct Humus Sapiens to this message and if he's not objecting to me weighing in I'll have a look. But even, then, only if I have time, and I can only promise to speak what I find. Good luck. --Vjam 16:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See [[1]] His edit history without discussion is my concern. He seems to delete posts that do not match his viewpoint on the Utopian state of Israel failure to mention both sides of the coin gives false information to people.--Oiboy77 23:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. Feel free to do what you think is right. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for goodness sake. I went to look at this thinking it might be an excercise in finely balanced judgment etc, but clearly, Oiboy you've vandalised the Israel article on more than one occasion and I'm sorry to say that, in that context, you can't necessarily expect to be taken in good faith. If you want to change this, I'd suggest a good way to start would be to apologise and begin demonstrating that you are interested in making constructive edits and working collaboratively with people even if you don't necessarily agree with them. --Vjam 16:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine and Land of Israel

People keep refering to a consensus reached on talk, but reading through talk I cannot find this. I was wondering if you could explain this to me, or link to the specific discussion. Reading through the past discussion it seems like you and I hold a similar position. That it is s double standard to include Land of Israel in the Palestine article, but not vice versa. Furthermore, it appears that "Eretz Yisrael" isn't even a translation of Palestine so it shouldn't be in the opening sentence. However, every effort to change this has been reverted, and no one has yet been willing to discuss this with me at talk. I apologize for coming into this debate a little late, and I feel like an idiot for not being able to find the consensus on talk, but I am not satisified with the current state of the two articles. So can you help me understand how the current wording was reached? Thanks for your consideration.--Andrew c 23:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrew. I do agree with your position. Someone (I don't know if it was you) took out the Eretz Israel, not what came after, so it ended up reading "Palestina, a term for the same area". I thought this needed rectifying, but didn't feel I could do this without also re-inserting Eretz Israel, having just been through a discussion and reached a compromise on it.

I think persuing this further is talk is fine though. Really, you are right, I think, it shouldn't be in brackets at all. However, Wikipedia is populated by a lot of Americans and Israeli partisans, so my opinion its not worth fighting for balance (you'll give yourself a heart attack), only to curb the most excessive examples. --Vjam 16:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:The original lo fi.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:The original lo fi.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Smartarse robocop. If you're going to lay down the law in that sanctimonious tone, you could at least sign your posts properly.--Vjam 16:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UN SCR 242 mediation request

Vjam, This is the guy formerly know as "IP address 201.53.27.33" I want to let you know that my IP address has changed (I don't have any control over this one way or the other) which appears to me to make the current mediation effort moot because I won't be able to respond. I have posted a message to Jayjg's Talk page which I hope you will have time to look at, and then you can decide what you want to do about the current dispute. In the meantime I have registered, so this issue shouldn't be a problem in the future although I'll tell you now (in order to avoid wasting anybody's time) that my online time in September looks as though it will be extremely limited and I can't guarantee that I'll be able to respond to mediation efforts, etc. during that month even if I want to. I do intend to stay completely plugged in for the next week and a half, and I also intend to continue pursuing the subject again beginning towards the end of September.Dasondas 20:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for your message. --Vjam 21:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/United Nations Security Council Resolution 242.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 12:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC).

Non-free use disputed for Image:All-fm-157x60.gif

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:All-fm-157x60.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Bad Shave.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Bad Shave.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Babybird.gif

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Babybird.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Babybird-The-Happiest-Man.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Babybird-The-Happiest-Man.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Babybird-Dying-Happy.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Babybird-Dying-Happy.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Bornaman.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Bornaman.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Fatherhood1.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Fatherhood1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Packshot.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Packshot.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:The original lo fi.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:The original lo fi.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Moznme.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Moznme.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by an adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]